no one represents a motorist, so they can weigh what is happening through the motorist of this city. currently parking spots are gobbled up like space and we need to have the motorist point of view. actually, mr. behind ski sympathized me two years ago and i hope it remains the same. i would like to suggest that a motorist fill in the empty sit. >> every time i go home and talk to my wife, i here the motorist view loud and clear, so i have sympathy. >> patrice. >> [inaudible]. >> that as not my suggestion. >> patrice m followed by erik scott. is patrice here? >> yeah. >> okay. >> good afternoon, directors. my full name is patrick musud. i'm a public attorney. i'm going to

ask the board a few simple questions, just a request for public information. if you'd like to remain silent, i can understand. i'm going to ask these rhetorically. are you aware that the city enforces tickets that are voidable because they don't list the last four of the vin. i take my your silence that you know this or you're refusing to answer. are you aware that your mta gives 21 days to correct parking. and you give a grace period of an additional 21 days giving times to krek the first of these citations. are you aware that the ssmta issue five such expired citations so they can collect on all five. sometimes even within 41 days. i do have

ssmta admissions in this regard, official documents. now, are you also aware that you've been served multiple times with multiple state and federal subpoena for public documents. i've also recently served at federal is -- subpoena yesterday and i was hoping you got that yesterday as ms. boomer received a copy. there were facts to the city in defense attorneys in racketeers, c 13 for which a motion to dismiss was served on me this morning. now, for some reason, i am not getting electronic notices when things are being served nor in paper form timely. >> thank you, sir. >> i'll leave these subpoena.

>> erik scott. he's the last to turn in a speaker's card. >> good afternoon, scott. mr. scott. >> good afternoon. my name is erik p scott. i have been living in san francisco for over 25 years without a car. the people who are fortunate enough to be able to use private community shuttles made it to work and the rest of us are not so fortunate. muni is essential for many of us and it's essential for me to get to my frequent medical appoints, so get to my pharmacy, to get the medications that keep my heart

beating closer to normal. this is life and death. i'm not exaggerating all that month. for the driver's who showed up for work, [inaudible], that's japanese for thank you. for the rest of them, i understand that the cd c said it's epidemic, and some of them call in sick and given that's not the case, and a half and two thirds don't show up for work, i think they're faking it and my advice is fire them. fire them all. and look at expanding alternatives to muni. they're allowing the other public agencies, such as golden gate transit and sam trans to pick up and discharge freely within the city. expand the opportunities that are afforded to the commuter

shuters with a minimum amount of government regulations and look at contracting out the motor coach service to some other company. preferably in the union company and it doesn't have to be something leak the oleo. disney can do a better job. >> next speaker. >> kim, and he's the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i am kim. i'm a resident of san francisco and i'm a daily muni user. if it were up to me, i would double supervise wiener's -- i occupy a seat appointed by the board of supervisor and work in social service agencies

immigration. so it's the last two that i like to speak to you about. i'll only address local homeless boards funding opportunities. we are the lead entity for the san francisco continue of care and at our last proposal, we received $21 million with i we distributed at different cbo to prevent homelessness and solve homelessness issues so we're expanding this money over here and ssfmta are issues tickets to homeless tickets which they can't pay. we had a client -- she was 19 years old and she had been homeless since she was 15. we found her house and she qualified for everything except those tickets have been turned over to a collection agency and it took five months to take care of it.

we have a homeless veteran who went to ft. myers for a checkup and he didn't have the money and he explained the situation to the driver and he said, you can ride. and he was -- the ticket agents came on and he was issued a ticket. so the board has been inviting, ssfmta has opinion trying to come up with solutions. we're spending money pulling this direction and you're spending money pulling this direction. it makes no sense. i want to issue ssmta to come to the board and join us with coming up with solutions. thank you. >> one thing, mr. scott said that occurred to me, i know that bart has been helping out our situation the last couple of days as we did with them a couple of times last year. to -- do we have

arrangements with golden gate? speaker: it's something that we piloted during the america's cup. i did talk to the directors of both those agencies yesterday. it's something that if we were in a more retracted situation, we can manage and the logistics with making that workable in a short time period. it's something that is always available for us to consider. >> i wonder if it would be a good idea to explore the idea and having an mou in place. the other agencies could use our services at some point too. members, look into that. okay. thank you very much. with consent calendar. >> 10 point h has been removed

and 10.3 has been severed at the request of a member of the public and i know of no other item to be severed and discussed separately. speaker: motion to approve. >> is there a second. >> all in favor say aye. >> is ordered. >> 10.3 authorizing the director execute amendment to a contract with consulting for environmental service for the transit effective amount in the amount of $205,000 amount and not to exceed $2.5 million with no change to the contract. herbert winer. >> just one comment, i hope when this additional money is spent evaluation, it includes

addressing the needs of the disabled and seniors because under this proposal transit effective project, people are going to be required to walk up to a quarter of mile to the bus. now, that can have severe impact on some people. i think people try to board the bus and they've had a hard time doing it and i think to myself, how can they walk a quarter of a mile to the bus stop. this has to be evaluated as part of your study, and i strongly suggest that you employee the [inaudible] of the department of public health in one of the positions. [inaudible]. pause -- because eventually you're going to run into this problem down the road and you

owe it the disabled and the seniors to do this. and i would like to see the internal operations and also their daily operational processes. to see how these can be improved. i think it would be beneficial to have an outside agency do this. so i think these are important aspects should be included with a sum of the money that's going to be spent for it. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there a second. >> second. >> for discussion, all in favor say aye. >> so ordered. >> a discussion regarding the bench marking public transportation. >> okay. director, riskin, is this you you? >> we asked the city services auditor to provide this presentation.

they took a bench mark study and other systems around the country that had some pretty interesting findings and i thought that the board and the public would be interested in hearing them, so peg stevenson is here with her staff. >> good afternoon, staff. the charter -- the city service auditor causes for our office to do data analysis and calls for bench marking of san francisco public services to other agencies so that's the context this falls into. we've done reports on the department of public works, the jail population, the recreation and park department, and the library, and mta was issued in march. it's the most recent. muni has a row puft performance and an effort of its own of operations. that's not this. this is about bench

marking. and it's interesting stakeholders and leadership, and i think you'll find the contents interesting. this is rapka who did the presentation and he'll walk you through it and thank you for having us. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, members of the board, director riskin. >> we want to compare the cost of light rail boss and trolley bus services. we generally follow the methodology outlined in transit research report number 141 and measurement in pure comparison in the industry. it's a corporate effort, national economy and educational and research association.

published in 2010 by the national academy. it's for the methodology for the measure of transportation and an approach for selecting pure agents and it was designed to serve as a practical process for selecting pure agencies based on defined and readily area. the methodology went rounds of review and testing by local agencies and state departments of transportation. this is up to 14 pier friendship factors to identify agencies that's similar to the target agencies. the screening factors narrow down candidates and the process involves the difference between the target agencies and the candidates based on the remaining 14 factors. this is combined to a single score and those with the lowest score is

the most appropriate piers. >> after applying these through agencies, the one emerged as the most suitable are the ones listed here. this chart and the two on the next slide are intended to give you an idea of how closely match the pier is to the mta. the mix of transit mode -- the structure in size, its budget and the aspect of its day-to-day management. agencies that operate similar transit is suitable in bench marking analysis. this chart shows the trips that each agency carries by transit. you can see that the piers are similar to mta and the predominant mode are bus and light rail as shown my the dark blue scales. it's similar to mta accord to go the other factors and one of the few transits that

operate trolley bus services. annual operating expenses shows indicators. jerry you can accord to go the measures, they're -- we compared san francisco to its piers according to 20 performance and the other topics you see here. i'd like to highlight beginning with operating cost of mode with transit. this figure shows the total cost broken down by motor transportation. mta is in the middle, it has higher cost. for both light rail and trolley bus

rail. for example, mta operates nine fully staff, and newer has been able to operate with less staffing. the likely hood for mta higher cost, it has more vehicles than its piers. you can see that in this chart which shows the average numbers of vehicles and mid and weekday service. on a week day, mta operates between 3 and 14 times. the number of light rail operates nearly double than seattle. it makes since that mta cost are higher for these modes. when you have the operating cost as we have done with mid rail, there's a correlation between the two variables. this chart make it's clear that mta

cost are in line the train established. the mta cost are higher, they do not seem to be unreasonably so. this is coverage throughout an agency service area. the chart make it's clear that mta stands far apart. this is out of necessity because many parts of the city would have charter fee. a high number of miles per square mile may indicate routing. in some cases that may be intentional such as lines that have lined on on or expressed -- >> continuing with the theme of acceptable and availability have compared fares across the system. this shows the bus

fares during peak periods of operations and the cities are sorted from highest to lowest and you can tell by the shading that the fares are lower throughout the categories. light rail fares is similar. with extensive coverage, it shouldn't be a surprise that mta has high rider ship. the number of ride rail boarding per person is the next highest city and the number bus boarding is the next highest city. it does appear that our high rider ship comes at a price in terms of vehicle speed and the top chart shown here, the idea of highest speed -- it's plotted on the vertical session. our vehicle was slower on average for both modes. buses

is an apparent reason for that. there's a high correlation. this makes sense because each time a vehicle stops or boards, it experiences a delay. but again, you can see mta performance is in line. one of the mta's challenges is figuring out how to elevate the green dot in that bottom figure despite increases in rider ship. vehicle speed depends on more than rider ship. we have seen the improvements that mta is implementing such as the use of a priority system and that can reduce travel time. the more these are implemented, it will be interesting to see how it is presented compared to our piers. i'm going to discuss revenue miles which is used as an

indicator of delays that arrive due to equipment problems. vehicle fail yours are divided into two categories. one presents a present or starting its next trip because of safety concerns or movement of the vehicle is limited. a minor failure is one that prevents a vehicle, but that's because the vehicle should be taken out of service. this chart shows the average number of miles between -- between vehicle failure, of either type, major or minor. you can see for buses -- it is common if the industry to look at the number of revenue miles between major failures only and when we do that, you can see our performance increases substantial from 617 miles between total failures to

more than 2500 miles per failures. our peers increase and they have a high number of miles between major failures. these number was generally consistent with data from prior years so they're not reporting errors you we're not sure what was behind them. it could be allowed to do more investigation into how these investigations achieve these numbers to apply the practices here. that concludes our presentation and we're happy to take any questions you have. >> very interesting. >> thank you. >> members of the board. brinkman. >> no specific questions but i find all of this data fascinating because as a bench marking exercise, this will be great to have as we move forward with our improvements. i'm sure it said in here, the year that we looked at this.

>> yes, all the data is based on 2011 which is the last year of data that we had when we began the analysis. >> this was before signal priorzation. q. -- >> the take away is for cost. we provide more service and with we carry a lot more riders and we have vehicles that are slow and they break down a lot. the improvements that's represented by the tep and funded by the general bond and address that the and vehicle replacement that we have since -- they have started on the

rubber tire fleet and we'll be moving forward on the light rail fleet. we'll address of the vehicle fares as well and the funding license increase that the task force recommended that would allow us to increase the number of vehicles as well. i think the task force is a funding that comes from them including on what's this november addresses those issues but i think it was interesting to note that more higher density of service and still at a relative cost compro ability. >> the slides are interesting and a lot of the information both good and bad at least to me can be explained by gee --

geography. when you look at houston, it's a different kettle of fish, but i do hear all the things you're saying. can you go to your last slide which was the light rail. mr. haleigh will be mad at me if i didn't ask them question. >> i'm sure he'll be happy to provide commentary to the slide as well. >> we have all these charts where it lines up and we have these comparisons where okay, san francisco is more dense and more transit riders and then you get to this slide which is the last slide and you're like, this doesn't line up. if this was a chart, we wouldn't be on the chart. it's a very significant thing. so i guess my question is, why? i mean, there's got to be some answers because we failed to do mid life rehabs in the last administration, is it

because that our light rail vehicles leave right away and don't have to operate in the streets more than others. is it because of the nature -- what's the reason? there's got to be something that comes to you right away as the reason for the fact that our light rail seem egg shell fragile compared to everyone els. >> again, i'm sure mr. haleigh could talk for hours on this. what i would summarize and if you'd like him to answer, i'm sure he'll be happy to answer as well. the number of riders put more train on viewer vehicles. and the design of the rails and 120 moving parks and the doors and the steps mechanism is a high maintenance design. it is a very high failure design. we think that vehicle design wasn't the best and we see the manifestation of that and the

failures. and the third is, i think, not having the resources to invest in the mid life overhauls where they have done some components specific, mid life overhaul investment and replacing the wiring and the harness that connects the vehicle or the trucks that the vehicles ride on. we've soon some benefit from that, but we're not doing that overhaul on all of the vehicle systems as the manufacturer recommends and like we would do with the license fee revenues. those are my top three reasons why we're off the charts. i think there is probably some measurement difference from 200,000 to 300,000 but i don't doubt we're at the low ends and those are my guess at the top three reasons. >> this jumped off the page at you. >> he have -- we haven't had

time to look into that. >> it could be -- >> i suppose. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. speaker: thank you. stevenson. >> public comment? >> opportunity for members of the public to address the board. mr. winer. that's the only person who has turned in a speaker card. >> winer. >> herbert winer. one thing that is interesting about this report and i grab the density with the factor in this evaluation but we have the second highest density to new york city and i would have liked to see new york city in this and

also chicago who has a good transportation system which i'll enjoy this weekend. also has a good system. those are major cities that should be compared. now, another factor regarding our density and this is very important. the bus runs that existed 40 years ago reflected a density of the city, but the transit effectiveness projects does is removes it from the neighborhoods and thins out and does not reflect the density of the neighborhoods. this is a major problem and i think what we have to do is we have to address this. so these are the aspects of the report that i'm noting and i hope the board notes it too. thank you. >> thank you, certificate. anyone else like to address the board. >> this was only a presentation. item 12 is a discuss to vote a

closed session. >> motion to conduct a closed session. >> any further discussion. all in favor say . >> item 13. the board of directors met in closed session and just the abu d a verses the case of the poured. they voted to discuss the case. they took no action and there was no discussion of litigation. item 14 to be appropriate to disclose or not disclose. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> we're adjourned. thank you very much.